martin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:39:59 +0100, (sw) wrote:
martin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:
Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a
twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions
differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance,
occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point.
There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic"
and others "inorganic".
It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.
Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.
The customers who buy "organic" products in supermarkets have no way
of knowing.
The chances are good that products sold bearing the logo of one of the
registered organic schemes conform to the standards of the scheme, as
these are enforced to the best of the scheme's ability. Anyone desirous
of knowing what those standards allow can obtain a copy of the
standards.
Many of the "organic" alternatives are now on the EU banned list of
chemicals.
If so, then they're no longer in use by anyone :-)
Many of the alternative chemicals being used were far more
dangerous than the current stuff used by normal commercial growers,
according to the BBC. There's a lot of pseudo science about. I blame
rotten education.
The last bit is certainly true.
My wife grows vegetables on an allotment organically. She and other
members use no chemicals. To me that's what organic is all about.
Just muck and magic? I've no objection to a bit of science, especially
when it aids growers producing stuff on a large scale. If we relied
solely on produce raised without any inputs and/or science, we'd have
starved long since :-)
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.